Took this picture this morning as I was walking my paper route. I walk just a bit past this on my first route. My second route is in a different area. So, for the police readers...here's our $3 million+ police station. Haven't counted recently, but we have about 17 full time police and the chief. They have hired 4 part time interim officers that will start work this summer sometime.I called the Massachusetts Department of Revenue today. It was really bugging me so I decided to just get it over with. I always try to approach such things with a little good humor. Long distance phone call, of course. Andrew answered. Andrew says, "How can I help you?"
Here goes.....
"I have a few questions about a 'notice to assess' that I received in the mail yesterday."
"Okay, what are the questions?"
"My first question is, do you have a sense of humor?"
"Sure, why?"
"Because when I got this notice I thought you folks really must be joking!"
(He laughed)
I explained that it would cost more to sent copies of all the documents that they wanted than I would get as my refund. He understood. He offered that I could send the original receipts and they would return them.
Hmmmm, he's suggesting I send the only records I have through the mail and trust first that they get there, then that they don't get lost, thrown out, or otherwise never to be returned to me. One word---No.
"Andrew, may I send a letter stating although I received this notice, that the costs to satisfy the request for further information outweigh the refund, therefore I will not be sending the information?" "Will they accept that with no further problems or penalties?"
Andrew replies, "That's fine, or you can just do nothing and you will not get the refund."
"Thanks, Andrew, enjoy the rest of your day."
Solved. I'm still not happy but that's a load of work and money saved. I still think it's wrong to deny the refund for no reason other than I was randomly selected and refuse to pay more to get less. Leave it to the government.......................
Mr. Tech P (note: He's also a Gloucester city councilor)
And the headline reads:
Court tells councilor: Pay piano owner $28K
The summary....
-July 2002 customer contracts to have baby grand restored
-Pays deposit of $2450
-August 2002 customer asks for work to be put on hold due to house failing to sell
-August 2005 customer pays another $2000 and says resume work
-Completion and delivery set for November 2005
-Doesn't happen, lots of excuses
-Tech P evicted
-Court action taken by customer
-Tech P denies receiving court documents
-Tech P fails to appear in court
and now you have the rest of the story.
HAVE THEY ALL GONE MAD????????
8 comments:
RepTony Verga andSen Bruce Tarr should hear your story. It is totally ludicrous that you should be denied your refund. Both men have local offices and a meeting face to face would sure be more rewarding than a letter they can just stick on a desk under a pile of "do nothing about this". Although Tarr still has not come around to my way of thinking on a particular issue, I did spend an hour with him one day and didn't sugar coat any words. They should do more for their constituents than show up at ribbon cuttings and march in the July 4th parade. They should get you your refund.
If YOU owed the state three cents, you would be hounded! The government is us - ya right. NOT!
Had to chuckle about your comment on the idea of owing the state three cents. Amanda had to pay $1. Okay, it's a bit more than 3 cents but still seems stupid to write a check for $1. By the dollar it would add up if everyone owed that. Maybe that's how they would make up for the dollar mistake they made with me. ($56 becoming $57)!
It's "The System" gals. Every country and public institution has "The System" and it's hard to beat.
Nice nick, Deb. Just acquainting myself with what the individual Officers do. Sure a lot different to ours.
Yes, but if you pick your "fights" carefully, you may occasionally be amazed at what you can do. Still thinking on the idea of a meeting with Tarr.
We have a pretty good PD, in my mind a tad overpaid, but that's what living in a union controlled state will do. We have a population of just over 7,000 and next to nil in serious crimes. One murder after thirty years without. It's a good thing that the suspect was sitting with the decomposing body. It made it easier for the police as there had been no one on the force who had ever worked a real murder investigation! Anyway, they see more of me than they would like. I worked with two officers in particular with solving my criminal harassment case against my ex husband, and I make sure to wave to them all when I'm out walking. They are now well trained and usually wave at me first! (of course there are the DD cards as well) The UK is a bit different from my limited knowledge (a RL friend on the force in NE England and another RL friend with the Metropolitan Police in London). I was quite impressed with the pleasantness and helpfulness when I called the police in Surbiton concerning RO service from here to there.
DD Cards, RL friends, RO service. It's no good Deb, you are going to have to print translations for your British readers!
Jeepers! DD = Dunkin' Donuts
RL = Real Life (internet acronym to distinguish from online friends)
RO = Restraining Order (gee, dickiebo)
I'll try to do better in the future.
I'll bet that Surbiton didn't know what a RO was. Next you'll be telling us that PD is Police Dept!!! (Quiet chortle).
Oh go ahead and laugh. After all it is April 1st! Anyway, when I talked to Surbiton, I did say "restraining order" rather than RO. They were quite good about it. My problem was the time frame in which the courts here work. They issue a temporary, 10 day RO, until they receive "return of service" upon which time the RO is then in effect for 1 year. Well, try to get paperwork through the mail from here to the UK, served, and then returned here within 10 days. The courts would not fax the paperwork. I had to go back to court and explain to the judge why he didn't have his "return", then call Surbiton to see if they had received the paperwork and had served it to the ex. Per your laws, they told me it had been received but could not tell me if and when it had been served (got to protect that defendant's rights to disclosure). Surbiton did, however, call the court over here to let them know the "service" paperwork was in the mail on its way back. I thought that was a *very* generous thing for Surbiton to have done.
Post a Comment